Secunia Vulnerability Report Accusing Apple Dismantled

Posted by Scott Jarkoff in Shorts

, , , ,

AppleInsider has taken the aforementioned Secunia vulnerability report to task, dismantling the claim that Apple has the highest number of security holes.

Secunia’s vulnerability counts reset when Microsoft changes the name of its product, but continue to accumulate for Apple because the company hasn’t rebranded Mac OS X since 2003, when Secunia began keeping track. Browsing Secunia’s database, it appears Mac OS X has suffered from hundreds of vulnerabilities while Microsoft’s Windows has racked up far fewer, but that’s only because Microsoft’s regular rebranding efforts reset Secunia’s clocks.

At the same time, Secunia does not break up Apple’s vulnerability counts by each reference release of Mac OS X, so its current vulnerability listings date back through Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, and Leopard, as well as the currently installed base of Snow Leopard.

How Secunia arrives at its totals are also puzzling, as according to its own statistics Apple’s Mac OS X was affected by 6 “advisories” in 2010, only one of which has not yet been patched. That issue is rated as “not critical” and can only be exploited by local users.

This is the article I should have written, but unfortunately I did not have the time to conduct the necessary in-depth research to write such an eloquent response to the obviously bogus report. AppleInsider should be praised for clearly articulating their dissection of the claims made in the report, especially since Secunia carries a lot of weight in the security industry.

It is obvious Secunia need to tweak their methods to better express an accurate depiction of the operating system vulnerability landscape. The first thing Secunia needs to do is retract the graph, which is what most people are paying close attention to. A visual representation of the number of vulnerabilities, with Apple sitting atop the chart, clearly does the security industry an injustice by not accurately reporting the current vendor vulnerability situation.

Comments are closed.